Blair Christopher Hanloh v. People of The State of California

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Blair Christopher Hanloh v. People of The State of California

Blair Christopher Hanloh v. People of The State of California

Petitioner:	Blair Christopher Hanloh
Respondent:	People of The State of California
Case Number:	8:2017cv00116
Filed:	January 23, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Douglas F. McCormick
Presiding Judge:	Josephine L. Staton
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 28, 2017	Filing 8 JUDGMENT by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Under the Order Summarily Dismissing Petition 7 , IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)
February 6, 2017	Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that on or before March 1, 2017, Petitioner must show cause in writing as to (1) why his petitions in SACV 17-00113-JLS (DFM) and SACV 17-00114-JLS (DFM) should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was not in custody when they were filed and (2) why his petitions in SACV 17-00113-JLS (DFM), SACV 17-00114-JLS (DFM), and SACV 17-00116-JLS (DFM) should not be dismissed under Rule 4 because they fail to state a nonfrivolous claim. As to the petition in SACV 17-00116-JLS (DFM), Petitioner must clarify whether he received a term of probation in that case and when it expired or is set to expire. (Refer to Order for details.) (es)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 28, 2017

Filing 8 JUDGMENT by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Under the Order Summarily Dismissing Petition 7 , IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

February 6, 2017

Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that on or before March 1, 2017, Petitioner must show cause in writing as to (1) why his petitions in SACV 17-00113-JLS (DFM) and SACV 17-00114-JLS (DFM) should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was not in custody when they were filed and (2) why his petitions in SACV 17-00113-JLS (DFM), SACV 17-00114-JLS (DFM), and SACV 17-00116-JLS (DFM) should not be dismissed under Rule 4 because they fail to state a nonfrivolous claim. As to the petition in SACV 17-00116-JLS (DFM), Petitioner must clarify whether he received a term of probation in that case and when it expired or is set to expire. (Refer to Order for details.) (es)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Blair Christopher Hanloh v. People of The State of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Blair Christopher Hanloh
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: People of The State of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?